M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

ITO, WARD, PHALODI, PHALODI vs. M/S RAMA ALLURE LLP, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

section 68 of the Act does not cast upon the such stringent responsibility upon the assessee. Thus, to understand based on these evidence whether the provision of section 68 is attracted or not it is imperative to reproduced the provision of the section 68 of the Act the same reads as under:- Cash credits. 68. Where

LUBI GEL LLP,JODHPUR vs. DCIT,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

68 & 69/Jodh/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Lubi GEL LLP Vs. The DCIT, CPC Jodhpur Bangluru PAN NO: AAGFL1843E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These four appeals by different assessees are directed against the separate

LUBI GEL LLP,JODHPUR vs. ADIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

68 & 69/Jodh/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Lubi GEL LLP Vs. The DCIT, CPC Jodhpur Bangluru PAN NO: AAGFL1843E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These four appeals by different assessees are directed against the separate

C G TECHNOSOFT PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

68 & 69/Jodh/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Lubi GEL LLP Vs. The DCIT, CPC Jodhpur Bangluru PAN NO: AAGFL1843E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These four appeals by different assessees are directed against the separate

C.G. TECHNOSOFT PVT. LTD. ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), , JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

68 & 69/Jodh/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Lubi GEL LLP Vs. The DCIT, CPC Jodhpur Bangluru PAN NO: AAGFL1843E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These four appeals by different assessees are directed against the separate

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

68,62,780, i.e. the income which has escaped assessment as per the reasons recorded. Neither the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment nor any other material on record demonstrate that the issue relating to the claim of deduction under s.801A of the Act was ever a subject matter of dispute in the re-assessment proceedings either at the time

SITA DEVI CHOUDHARY,AHORE JALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALORE

In the result, stands allowed

Bench: The Cit(A) Challenging The Additions Made By The Ao. The Ld.Cit(A) Upheld Both The Additions Made By Observing-

2,86,128 36,440 36. That it is further for your kind consideration that out of total sales as mentioned above the cash sale for the period of demonetisation is Rs 1,62,35,737/- (HS Diesel) and Rs 25,74,870/- (MS Petrol) totaling to Rs 1,88,10,607/-. These details can be verified from the Annexure1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

68 or u/s. 41(1) of the Act and hence, the addition made at Rs. 25,91,01.791/- is directed to be deleted. Considering my findings contained in para Nos. 7 & 11 (Supra), the total addition of Rs. 34,76,10,409/ is directed to be deleted, ground Nos. 2 to 6 raised by the appellant regarding this issue

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry provider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is no ground/material to form reasonable belief

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDIAPUR, UDAIPUE

68, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry provider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is no ground/material to form reasonable belief

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

2 to section 147 are applicable in this case, obtained necessary sanction separately to issue notice under section 148 from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax as per the provisions of section 151 of the IT Act, 1961. Notice under section 148 of the IT Act was issued on 26.03.2021 and duly served upon the assessee through

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

68, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry provider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is no ground/material to form reasonable belief

M/S BHAGIRATH DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGAUR

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

section 68 of the act and and added to the income of the assessee. In addition to the cash-credits, the AO has further made addition of Rs. 8,56,000/- u/s 69A of the by treating the deposit in the name of Sh. Mohan Ram Choudhary and Smt.Tulchi Devi

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

section 145 are not found to\nbe relevant in the facts of this case. The AO has not disturbed the book results as the cash\ntransactions are not part of regular books of accounts.\nThe ld CIT(A) has also tried to distinguish the decisions relied upon. Thus on the\nbasis of above observations the ld. CIT(A) confirmed

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

section 68 of the Act. 5.0 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in treating the entire unexplained cash deposit as income of appellant without considering the explanation made by appellant. 5.1 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

section 68 of the Act. 5.0 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in treating the entire unexplained cash deposit as income of appellant without considering the explanation made by appellant. 5.1 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

section 68 of the Act. 5.0 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in treating the entire unexplained cash deposit as income of appellant without considering the explanation made by appellant. 5.1 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

section 68 of the Act. 5.0 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in treating the entire unexplained cash deposit as income of appellant without considering the explanation made by appellant. 5.1 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts